What could be a danger to the homeland and why? Sometimes we need to ask the question not only from the strictly military point of view, but also from the point of view of human behavior, because in front of and behind a weapon there is always a man. Then it becomes important to understand and to understand we must also make hypotheses and projections. What is described below is only a pure exercise of hypothesis and to do so some historical sentences have been taken that serve as support.
The basic hypothesis: the wrong listening
One of the greatest dangers that the Patria runs is that the summit listens to the "flatterers". This danger could be incumbent constantly and the damage that would result would be proportionate to the role played. In Italy as well as many good people there could be others, hopefully few, that could make the sophisticated art of flattery a reason for life (and profit). In this hypothetical situation, if you really want to change things in the Belpaese and look at the future in a rosy and proactive way, you should pay attention not to fall victim to these subjects.
History shows that these characters have always had the sole objective of keeping their earnings as long as possible. The problem is that those who listened to flatterers, therefore the leadership, has been slowly removed from reality by receiving partial and deforming information. It follows that the decisions that were taken were not at all anchored to the reality of the facts and did not bring benefits to the country, except to the flatterers themselves who continued to benefit from it.
There is no doubt that the external danger can be fought and contrasted with adequately prepared structures, adequate means and clear and functional strategies for this purpose. But if the enemy of the supreme national interest, because this is, in this pure theoretical exercise (...), had to lurk within the hierarchies or were contiguous to power, then the danger would be really high: here we are talking about people who could have a certain influence on decision maker. Here we are talking about choices that could involve the state. Here we are talking, in the long run, about the possible economic survival of the entire Italian community. The Italian state is not an intangible and abstract entity, because the state is us. All those who have Italian citizenship: the state is this!
The plague!
Niccolò Machiavelli, who was certainly not a fool, dedicated the entire chapter XXIII of his famous book De Principatibus (the Prince) to the problem "that with difficulty will defend themselves from this plague". Use of the word plague on the part of the great thinker it is extraordinarily indicative, because at that time it had a value much more important than that of today, as it was indeed a frightening danger.
The chapter "Quomodo adulatores sint fugiendi", regarding the behavior to be held by the ruling prince, reads verbatim "but he ought well to be wide inquisitor, and then about the things asked patient auditor of truth; on the contrary, meaning that no one for anyone else should not say, to be upset about it". [No. Machiavelli, Il Principe, Ed. Demetra Srl, Watercolors Essays, ppgg.158-161].
In short, the misrepresentation of reality, the giving and reporting of tamed information, the hiding of what is not good is a danger that Italy has known through the warning of Machiavelli for several centuries and that through the historical passage of knowledge in this matter hopefully it can be prepared and vaccinated for the future against this terrible plague.
Jean de La Bruyère, 1645-1696, writer, teacher and royal tutor, therefore one who knew well the court environment, made a concise and illuminating description of the adulator: "The man who knows things at court is master of his gestures, his eyes, his expressions; it is deep, impenetrable, hides bad offices, smiles at enemies, controls irritation, hides its passions, hides what it has in its heart, speaks and acts against its feelings". [The 48 laws of power, Robert Greene, Baldini & Castoldi pag.281].
Teaching comes alive: the ancient remedy
So on one side there is the adulator and on the other the leadership. If the former tends to mystify reality, the latter tends to be inebriated with power and to lose touch with reality.
An old remedy against the misuse of the persuaders' power of flatterers is the phrase "Memento mori! Memento te hominem esse! Respice post you! Hominem te esse memento!"(" Remember that you must die! Remember that you are a man! Look around you! Remember that you are only a man! "). In ancient Rome the triumphator heard these words repeated in his ear throughout the solemn ceremony and were pronounced by the slave who held the laurel wreath.
At the time they understood that a voice was needed to bring you back to reality.
The modern antidote
In the modern case in question, the voice that repeats "Memento mori!" Is the journalistic activity done with seriousness and without fear of displeasing the powerful of duty and the high military hierarchies. It is clear to everyone that the media are fundamental to the development of democracy, but no one has the courage to admit that the price to pay is to have uncomfortable journalists who tell the truth.
Print friend? And why! La Stampa must be free to do its job well. The possibility of having qualified journalists following the FFAA, the famous ones embedded, is the added value of the state. The weapon more than citizens!
A test: if by chance the intelligence fails ...
Let's say that intelligence created one disaster after another and the foreign policy idem. What picture would come out of it? Losses of entire economic sectors, removal from friendly countries and historic business partners. A situation that would certainly not bring improvements to our country.
A real exercise must be complex ...
Suppose, to complicate the exercise, that in today's newsagents that some newspapers put the emphasis on cost and cuts to FFAA and the renunciation of some too expensive weapon systems, but nobody publishes a line to seriously increase the intelligence so as to make it truly modern and efficient. In such a scenario, what would be the most rational way out?
The reasoning begins
It may also be good to restrict the purchase of state-of-the-art weapon systems, but on the condition that what we currently have is able to match the role because intelligence has provided the right assessments. If there is only one cartridge to shoot, it must necessarily hit the right target among the many false targets. If intelligence is not up to par, this will never happen.
Another complication: those "spoils" of the embedded!
Journalists embeddedFor those who do not know they are journalists specializing in the issues of Defense and trained specifically to follow the FFAA in all the operating theaters in the world, they are spoilsmen: eat a ride, just want to take an original vacation and do not want to do anything according to some. In short, a real burden! Yet they have a role that few have understood and appreciated: they are useful to J2 (Operational Intelligence, nrd).
The Banco wins!
What binds journalists embedded intelligence? An article! In fact, journalists do their job writing and intelligence does its reading. Because as rightly pointed out by Max Hastings (historian and journalist) "There are two types of journalism: the one that tries to tell the truth and the one that treats the news as if it were a commodity". [David Randall, the almost perfect Journalist, Editori Laterza] Summarizing: I take you away from me embedded with FFAA and you write what you saw and understood. Try to make two simple accounts of the inherent possibilities and costs and you will see that the affair is of the one who holds the bank: the State.
The flatterers are not watching
But the real problem is the flatterers, or those who tell things according to their personal interests (remember Machiavelli's warning!). Trying to make the hypothetical exercise a bit 'less boring, we can enter the field of hypothesis involving perhaps a small specialized publication that magically provides serious and reliable information. The same then corroborated and amply confirmed by the occurrence of events, while the structures responsible for collecting the same information maybe continue to do almost misfiring? And if the picture then fed to public opinion was not the one hypothesized by the Services? In short, if they had not done almost misfiring, what would it mean? A hypothetical answer could be that by way of information, it could have crossed a flatterer who collected it and revised it for use and consumption.
According to the talented journalist and writer Harold Evans: "No secret service, no bureaucracy, can provide the information guaranteed by a competitive journalism; not even the most skilled secret agents of the state police are up to a journalist working for democracy". [David Randall, the almost perfect Journalist, Editori Laterza]
To shut up or speak? This is the dilemma!
This exercise serves to create hypothetical scenarios also on the difficult choice to speak or not to speak with the media.
We want a safe, strong and competitive Italy? Well, let's start by rearranging all things in the right direction. "Holy words!" - someone could say. Easy to say, but then ...
Just to give an example, how can a senior officer be afraid of a man armed with a pen, when all his life he did nothing but train himself to face death in battle? It will not be by chance that he is afraid of ruining his career because he says something real but unseemly to the politician on duty?
The value of a soldier is not measured only with medals, but also by his actions against the prevailing decadence and flatterers. The French GENERAL who resigned because in disagreement with the government in the eyes of French public opinion is certainly more valuable than a person who instead made a decision because imposed by the political system.
GENERALE De Villiers must have read very well the old military training manual "L'Arte del Comando", by Captain André Gavet. In the booklet Gavet clearly explains that an officer should not be afraid to take a wrong step if this is dictated by good faith and he should not even be afraid to take the initiative. Indeed, this last one would be fundamental in the military field, therefore to your country.
Discipline is not servility, but a duty of free man. And the authority of the head is manifested by the trust in which it is placed because it is supported by two pillars: moral and intellectual value. And the French GENERAL must have made its own the maxims of Gavet, so that has applied controversially against the government in office.
The need to leave to the political force the permission to release an interview or not, or to be silent in front of a choice that from a military point of view is not useful to the country is debased for the military leaders? This interesting idea of contemporary reflection is useful for the current year. It could be said that the military, in the most technical sense of the term, have devoted their whole life to study and perfection their skills and then find themselves asking permission perhaps to some political official who until the day before did all other job. They are in fact two values that are not on the same level and that also have different characteristics.
End of lesson. Exercises for home!
Es.1) If everything is going under track. All! If the correct information does not arrive, is there a dangerous risk that the only ones available are always those of flatterers?
Only for the best
Ex. 2) 482-0623; 19191; 2525404640. What are they? Identification codes? Password? Combinations of some safe? Coordinate? Phone numbers?
Solutions
Ex. 1) Yes, the flatterers would have an easy life. Machiavelli spoke of "pest".
Ex. 2) These are three telephone numbers that correspond to American, Serbian and Somali intelligence services. The numbers can be found on their websites. Surely two services of the three listed we can not certainly define them of the first magnitude or the First World. What of Italian services? There is not!
(photo: Defense Online / Defense / web / MBDA / US DoD)
